BRIC Becomes BRICS: Changes on the Geopolitical Chessboard

The world’s four main emerging economic powers, known by the acronym BRIC — standing for Brazil, Russia, India and China — now refer to themselves as BRICS.

The capital “S” in BRICS stands for South Africa, which formally joined the four on December 24, bringing Africa into this important organization of rising global powers from Asia, Latin America and Europe. President Jacob Zuma is expected to attend the BRICS April meeting in Beijing as a full member.

This is a development of geopolitical significance, and it has doubtless intensified frustrations in Washington. The U.S. has been concerned about the growing economic and political strength of the BRIC countries for several years. In 2008, for instance, the National Intelligence Council produced a document titled “Global Trends 2025″ that predicted:

The whole international system — as constructed following WW II — will be revolutionized. Not only will new players — Brazil, Russia, India and China — have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.

More recently, the U.S. edition of the conservative British weekly The Economist noted in its January 1 issue that “America’s influence has dwindled everywhere with the financial crisis and the rise of emerging powers.”

The U.S. is still the dominating global hegemon, but a swiftly changing world situation is taking place as Washington’s economic and political influence is declining, even as it remains the unmatched military superpower.

America suffers from low growth, extreme indebtedness, imperial overreach, and virtual political paralysis at home while spending a trillion dollars a year on wars of choice, maintaining the Pentagon military machine, and on various other “national security” projects.

The BRICS countries, by their very existence, their rapid economic growth and degree of independence from Washington, are contributing to the transformation of today’s unipolar world order — still led exclusively by the United States — into a multipolar system where several countries and blocs will share global leadership. This is a major aim of BRICS, which recognizes it’s a rocky, long road ahead because those who cling to empire are very difficult to dislodge before they swiftly disintegrate.

Looking down that road the next few decades, it is imperative to contemplate two potentially game-changing events that will heavily impact global politics, and the future of world leadership.

1. The rate of petroleum extraction will soon reach the beginning of terminal decline, known as peak oil. This means more than half the world’s petroleum reserves will have been depleted, leading inevitably to much  higher oil prices and severe shortages. Under prevailing global conditions, this will greatly exacerbate tensions between major oil consuming countries leading to wars for energy resources

One resource war already has taken place — the Bush Administration’s bungled invasion of Iraq, which possesses the world’s fourth largest reserves of petroleum and tenth largest of natural gas. Since the U.S. with less than 5% of world population absorbs nearly 30% of the planet’s crude oil, who’s Washington’s next target — Iran? Behind the U.S.-Israeli smokescreen of alleged Iranian aggression and supposed nefarious nuclear ambitions, reposes the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves.

In 2009, the U.S.,with a  population of 300 million, consumed 18.7 million barrels of oil a day, the world’s highest percentage. The second highest — the European Union with a population of 500 million — consumed 13.7 barrels a day. China with a population of 1.4 billion people was third, consuming 8.2 million barrels. BRICS, incidentally, includes the country with the world’s first largest natural gas reserves, Russia (which is also eighth in petroleum reserves).

2. Equally dangerous, and perhaps much more so, is the probability of disastrous climate change in the next few decades, the initial effects of which have already arrived and are causing havoc with weather patterns. This situation will get much worse since the industrialized world, following slothful U.S. leadership, has done hardly anything to reduce its use of coal, oil and natural gas fossil fuels that are mainly responsible for climate change.

Another climate question is whether the capitalist system itself is capable of taking the steps necessary to dramatically reduce dependence on greenhouse gas emissions as the socialists maintain. Eventually, under far better global leadership, some serious action must be taken, but the damage done until that point may not be rectified for centuries, if not longer. The  question of better global leadership depends to a large degree on the outcome of the unipolar-multipolar debate.

Returning to the immediate problem, Washington not only opposes  BRICS’ preference for multipolarity, but is disgruntled by some of its political views. For instance, the group does not share America’s antagonism toward Iran — President Barack Obama’s whipping boy of the moment.  BRICS also lacks enthusiasm for America’s wars in Central Asia and the Middle East and maintains friendly relations with the oppressed Palestinians. The five nation emerging group further leans toward replacing the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency with a basket of currencies not preferential to any one country, as is the present system toward the U.S., or perhaps even a non-national global reserve legal tender.

For a small group —though it is symbolic of a large trend in world affairs — BRICS will have considerable clout this year as members of the UN Security Council occupying five of 15 seats — temporarily for Brazil (until the end of 2011), India and South Africa (ending after 2012), and permanently of course for China and Russia.

BRICS as an organization had a most unusual birthing. The group was brought into the world, so to speak, without the knowledge of its members. The event took place in 2001 when an economist with the investment powerhouse Goldman Sachs created the BRIC acronym and identified the four countries together as a lucrative investment opportunity for the company’s clients based on the enormity of their combined Gross Domestic Products and the probability of increasing growth.

Neither Brazil, Russia, India nor China played a role in this process, but they took note of their enhanced status as the BRICs and recognized that they shared many similarities in outlook as well as significant differences in their types of government and economic specialties.

The main similarity was that they were emerging societies with growing economies and influence, and they viewed Washington’s unilateral world leadership as a temporary condition brought about by accident two decades earlier due to the implosion of the Soviet Union and most of the socialist world. They all seek a broader, more equitable world leadership arrangement within which they and others will play a role.

At the initiative of Russia’s then-President Vladimir Putin in 2006, BRIC began what became regular meetings at the ministerial level that evolved a couple of years later into what is, in effect, a political organization. There are some differences and rivalries within its ranks that have been kept within bounds, such as between China and India (which is also close to the U.S.),  and to a lesser extent between Russia and China. Brazil and South Africa are everyone’s friends.

All five BRICS states — three of whom possess nuclear arsenals — maintain essentially cordial relations with the U.S. and try to avoid antagonizing the world superpower.

Dispite productive working relations between the U.S. and Russia, Moscow justly perceives Washington to be an implicit threat that seeks to neutralize — if it cannot dominate — it’s now reviving former Cold War opponent. The Russian leadership seems to view the U.S. as a strategically declining imperialist power, perhaps all the more dangerous for its predicament.

The Chinese government, while standing up for its rights when challenged by the U.S., is especially cautious because America’s military power at this point is overwhelmingly superior to its own in all respects. It’s trying to catch  up in terms of defense, but it will take many years.

The Chinese Communist Party and government are primarily focused, as they have been for decades, on the creation of a modern, advanced, educated and 70% urban society of some 1.4 billion people. The national plan is to achieve this goal by 2030, based on economic growth (China is now the world’s second largest economy, heading toward first within 15-35 years), political stability at home (which will soon require substantial social reforms to facilitate), and a foreign policy of nonintervention and friendship between nations.

The Beijing leadership is evidently uncertain whether the U.S. decline is temporary or long term and does not officially comment on such matters in line with its foreign policy perspective.

Just before the start of 3-day talks in Beijing regarding U.S.-China military relations, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the New York Times January 8 that the Obama Administration was so concerned about Beijing’s “military buildup in the Pacific” that the Pentagon was now increasing spending on such weapons as an advanced “long range nuclear-capable bomber aircraft,” among other measures.

Responding to Gates’ comment two days later at a joint press conference, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie said the U.S. “was overreacting” to an effort to modernize. “We can by no means call ourselves an advanced military force,” Liang said. “The gap between us and that of advanced countries is at least two to three decades.” This cannot be honestly disputed

The newspaper also paraphrased Gates as saying  during his visit that “if Chinese leaders considered the United States a declining power… they were wrong.” He was then directly quoted: “My general line for those both at home and around the world who think the U.S. is in decline is that history’s dustbins are filled with countries that underestimated the resilience of the United States.” Last August, it should be noted, two-thirds of the America people queried told an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll they think the U.S. is in a state of decline.

While Gates dwells upon Beijing’s “buildup,” the U.S. virtually encircles China with military bases, submarines, fleets at sea, spy satellites, long-range nuclear and conventional missiles, offensive weapons many years in advance of Chinese defenses, overwhelming airpower, plus alliances with Japan and South Korea in Beijing’s vulnerable northeast, Taiwan, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and India. The U.S. spends over 10 times more on the military than China. It operates up to 1,000 large and small military bases around the world, while China has no foreign bases.

The Obama Administration is presently fishing in the troubled waters of the South China Sea, intervening in territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries, including Vietnam, much to Beijing’s chagrin.

It is precisely this kind of “leadership” that BRICS and a number of emerging nations want to change.

The addition of South Africa was a deft political move that further enhances BRICS’ power and status.  The new member possesses Africa’s largest economy, but as number 31 in global GDP economies it is far behind its new partners, nearly by 20-1 in China’s case. It’s also behind such other emerging countries as Turkey, Mexico, and South Korea, for example — but African credentials are important geopolitically, giving BRICS a four-continent breadth, influence and trade opportunities. China is South Africa’s largest trading partner, and India wants to increase commercial ties to Africa.

Johannesburg sought BRIC membership over the last year, and as early as August  the process of admission was underway, but now as a member it must take serious steps to substantially hasten its economic development to keep pace with other BRICS members. This will not be easy, but it is assumed the partners will help out.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson declared: “We believe that South Africa’s accession will promote the development of BRICS and enhance cooperation between emerging economies.” Russia’s Foreign Ministry statement said South Africa “will not only increase the total economic weight of our association but also will help build up opportunities for mutually beneficial practical cooperation within BRICS.”

Brazil’s Foreign Ministry, in addition to the conventional welcoming, interjected a sharp political note into this economic club by suggesting that “on the international level” BRICS would work “to reform the financial system and increase democratization of global governance.”  The reference was to Washington’s dominant authority over global finance and its unipolar leadership. This is bound to further irritate Washington.

India, like South Africa a former British colony and now a swiftly developing country, cannot conceivably oppose Johannesburg’s admission for obvious reasons, but has so far remained publicly silent since the December 24 announcement. India’s unexpected quietude is of interest because last August Indian High Commissioner Virendra Gupta commented that “India of course remains extremely supportive of South Africa joining BRIC.” The Indian foreign office is too sophisticated to have forgotten the expected routine welcoming.

Maintaining good ties with Washington, which is disturbed by South Africa’s membership, is one of New Delhi’s main considerations. The United States has been courting India for some time, offering various rewards — from help with its nuclear program (and silence about its violation of the nonproliferation treaty) to supporting India’s quest for a future Security Council seat (which China opposes and Russia supports). The purpose is to attract India  more deeply into Washington’s orbit, undercutting Beijing’s increasing global influence, and perhaps setting the two against each other.

Global Trends 2025 even envisioned possible “great power rivalries and increasing energy insecurity” between India and China that may lead to a serious confrontation “though great power war is averted.” In the process, “United States power is greatly enhanced. ”

Regardless of BRICS and other emerging economies, President Obama’s principal foreign policy objective since assuming office has been to reassert American global leadership after the Bush Administration’s neoconservative imperialist wars and unilateralism weakened Washington’s alliances and compromised its hegemony. This is what Obama was elected to do  —  not, by rank-and-file Democrats cocooned  in “change we can believe in,” but by the representatives of great wealth, great corporations and great financial power.

The Obama Administration’s first National Security Strategy report, released in May 2010, makes it clear that “Our national security strategy is… focused on renewing American leadership so that we can more effectively advance our interests in the 21st century.” In discussing world economies, which correlate to global leadership in Washington’s view, President Obama declared in his State of the Union Speech last year that “I do not accept second place for the United States of America.”

As part of this policy the U.S. seeks to forestall the development of a genuine multipolar system by making limited concessions to the emerging nations that will that leave Washington in charge for many years.

Washington’s latest scheme, introduced a year and a half ago by Secretary of State Clinton, is the  so-called, “multi-partner,” not “multipolar,” world — suggesting the Obama Administration’s intention is to serve as “senior” partner of a global leadership “coalition of the willing,” as it were, that will in effect strengthen Washington’s singular role.

“We will lead,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations, “by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multipolar world and toward a multi-partner world. Now, we know this approach is not a panacea. We will remain clear-eyed about our purpose. Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values and interests. And some will actively seek to undermine our efforts. In those cases, our partnerships can become power coalitions to constrain or deter those negative actions.”

The U.S. also gives verbal support to an eventual expansion of the  Security Council, and has cooperated in extending the powers of emerging countries within the Group of 20 leading industrialized economies, in the World Bank and IMF. In addition the State Department seeks one-to-one arrangements advantageous to certain countries to keep them well within the U.S. sphere of influence.

Washington  intends to function as the principal world power for as long as it can. After all it is still an enormously wealthy, militarized state with powerful and obedient industrialized allies including the European Union countries (and NATO), the UK-Australia-Canada-New Zealand nexus, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and others.

However, the ongoing global diversification of economic and political resources toward the emerging countries appears to be leading inevitably to multipolarity. To quote “Global Trends 2025″ once again:

The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future…. Growth projections for Brazil, Russia, India, and China indicate they will collectively match the original G-7’s share of global GDP by 2040-2050.  China is poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country. If current trends persist, by 2025 China will have the world’s second largest economy and will be a leading military power.

Actually China became the second largest global economy last August, 15 years before 2025.

Under such conditions, how many newly empowered emerging countries will remain content simply to play follow-the-leader behind a faltering and militarist Uncle Sam?

The time of decision about the architecture of future world leadership draws nearer. At some point in 10 or 20 years a reluctant Washington may have to settle for a prominent position in a multipolar world construct.

But, of course, there remains another possibility.

Given the volatile global situation — peak oil, climate change, continued U.S. imperial wars, grave poverty that will increase as world population grows from 6.8 billion today to over 9 billion in 2050, and many emerging countries seeking a rightful share of world leadership — the Unites States may resort in time to global military aggression to sustain its dominant status, possibly even World War III.

Considering the U.S. political system’s decades-long move toward the right, the enormity of the Pentagon’s arsenal, the militarism in our society, and the ability of Washington and the corporate mass media to collaborate in “selling” wars to a misinformed public, this cannot be ruled out.

It is impossible to predict how all this will turn out. What is known is that the American people  still have the power to make their own history. This is not so much a question of voting — for whom, in this case? — but of taking action to galvanize the masses of people to oppose the political structure’s penchant for wars and global domination, for inexcusable foot-dragging on climate change and indifference to gross economic inequality.

Jack A. Smith is editor of the Activist Newsletter and a former editor of the Guardian (US) radical newsweekly. He may be reached at: jacdon@earthlink.net. Read other articles by Jack.

56 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Don Hawkins said on January 15th, 2011 at 9:25am #

    In 2009, the U.S.,with a population of 300 million, consumed 18.7 million barrels of oil a day, the world’s highest percentage.

    China with a population of 1.4 billion people was third, consuming 8.2 million barrels.

    So it can be done. Cup of coffee, checkers anyone red or black.

  2. Don Hawkins said on January 15th, 2011 at 9:47am #

    Nature Geoscience
    Year published:
    (2011)
    A threat of irreversible damage should prompt action to mitigate climate change, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which serves as a basis for international climate policy. CO2-induced climate change is known to be largely irreversible on timescales of many centuries, as simulated global mean temperature remains approximately constant for such periods following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions while thermosteric sea level continues to rise. Here we use simulations with the Canadian Earth System Model to show that ongoing regional changes in temperature and precipitation are significant, following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions in 2100, despite almost constant global mean temperatures. Moreover, our projections show warming at intermediate depths in the Southern Ocean that is many times larger by the year 3000 than that realized in 2100. We suggest that a warming of the intermediate-depth ocean around Antarctica at the scale simulated for the year 3000 could lead to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would be associated with a rise in sea level of several metres.

    A threat of irreversible damage should prompt action to mitigate climate change………..repeal and replace is it. The so called leaders here in the States appear to not have the knowledge needed so…………………?

  3. MichaelKenny said on January 15th, 2011 at 11:12am #

    I agree broadly with the author’s analysis but I don’t think all this is going to take 10 to 20 years. Don’t forget that no one would have said when Gorbachev came to power in 1985 that the Soviet Union would be gone only six years later. Everyone assumed that his reforms would work and the “new” Soviet Union would go on forever. Just like Obama now, Gorby was stymied by gridlock within the ruling elite. I think that America’s future will be decided during the next presidential term. By 2016, things will look very different.

  4. mary said on January 15th, 2011 at 11:27am #

    Don What are the comparisons for the consumption of coal and gas for the US and China?

  5. Don Hawkins said on January 15th, 2011 at 1:07pm #

    {http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig6.gif}

    {http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig26.gif}

    There’s two chart’s Mary.

  6. Don Hawkins said on January 15th, 2011 at 1:22pm #

    China is also the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal, with about half of its coal use
    being for electricity generation. In fact, coal provides over 70% of China’s current electricity
    needs, and fuels much of the new power generation capacity being built.

    United States
    Some argue that the United States does not have a comprehensive national policy in place for
    promotion of renewable energy technologies.

    {http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41287.pdf}

  7. Don Hawkins said on January 15th, 2011 at 1:38pm #

    Out of all those charts and words did you notice an economic slowdown less fossil fuels burned less greenhouse gas. What a concept the slowdown concept or theory and we then all sit in candle light rooms reading Dickens, Einstein, Poe and Orwell. Yes some will have electricity and we will see them high on the hill the shinning light with probably copies of Atlas Shrugged and how to win friends and influence people, pathetic.

  8. Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 2:18pm #

    This is an important topic but I had some disagreements with the author’s conjectures about the role of resources and “climate change” regarding the BRICS. Because this is such an important issue, this needs to be explored from all sides.

    For example the author’s writes …

    The rate of petroleum extraction will soon reach the beginning of terminal decline, known as peak oil.

    He writes this as a given however Chavez himself says he has a 200 years worth of reserves and Russia has also developed new ways of extraction. The point is there is too many contradictory information to draw conclusively that there will be peak oil and thus “war for Oil”. Also the author failed to report how China is advancing its use of solar technologies and other renewable technologies which will curb its demand of fossil fuel use.

    However there is an “imperialistic” strain among the Liberal-left that seeks to cynically use “environmental” and “human–rights” concerns to curtail the development and to create a frenzied backlash toward the BRICS and development and progress in general.

    One resource war already has taken place — the Bush Administration’s bungled invasion of Iraq, which possesses the world’s fourth largest reserves of petroleum and tenth largest of natural gas.

    This was the tell tale giveaway that the author’s assumptions was going to fit within the constraints of the psuedo-Left, Chomskyite zio-imperialist narrative. The War on Iraq was NOT about oil. It was about the SUCCESSFUL destruction of a fairly modern society that was rival to the racist Zionist project. The author covers Zionism influence of U.S. policy with the same old “war for oil” canard. What this does unfortunately is to distort his entire analysis because he fail to how Zionism in the 21st Century is influencing policy and relationships. Resources and Racism are both factors in these alignments. The author directs our attention to one while concealing the other.

    Equally dangerous, and perhaps much more so, is the probability of disastrous climate change in the next few decades, the initial effects of which have already arrived and are causing havoc with weather patterns.

    Again this is presented as a given but there is too much conflicting information and not all scientists agree on the matter. However this issue, as express by the Chinese and other developing nations, is seen as a ruse being deployed by the developed nation to retard the developing nation’s growth and development. The pseudo-Left, many of whom supports the “color revolutions”, are huge promoters of “climate change”. My point here nothing should be taken as given and all political angles should be explored.

  9. Keith said on January 15th, 2011 at 2:37pm #

    My big criticism of this political analysis is that it does not give adequate attention to corporate globalization. The economic discussion revolves around national economies. The reality is that the same transnational corporations and financial institutions which more or less run the US on the macro level also have significant and growing influence in the BRICS countries. All of these countries are effectively locked into the global capitalist system. China, for example, is one huge maquiladora zone for the transnational corporations. The system seems to be moving away from an American imperial system towards a transnational corporate imperial system. We seem to be at a transition point, with a great deal of turbulence and shocks in the offing, and the future highly uncertain and unpredictable.

  10. Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 4:36pm #

    The reality is that the same transnational corporations and financial institutions which more or less run the US on the macro level also have significant and growing influence in the BRICS countries.

    Keith’s comment sounds like something out of the simplified pseudo-Left’s playbook. Without any evidence to support his conjecture it sounds like a bit of a stretch. Is Keith suggesting that WalMart runs China? Clearly their relationship is much more complex.

    China has is own national agenda and WalMart and other U.S. firms took advantage of the low dollar conversion and lower wages in China to outsource production. It is a mutual relationship between the U.S. Capitalist elites and Chinese elites. WalMart enable Chinese goods to be sold in the USA and access to the U.S. markets helped China amass capital. The Chinese cheap labor allowed U.S. politicians to institute neo-liberal rollback of the Welfare State and to grow the FIRE sector. Much of this was in response to the falling rate of profit growth and the attack of labor for the past 40 years. (read: Capitalism).

    James Petras recently wrote these new alignments. He states …

    Thus imperial action is not always directly economic, as military action in one country or region is necessary to open or protect economic zones. Nor are all military actions decided by economic interests if the leading sector of the imperial state is decidedly militarist.

    The point here is that what going on is not strictly economic, not strictly militarist. Sometimes you can isolate those interests and other times they blend together to forge new alignments. The problem that I see with the author is that he is too fixated on the so-called “resource imperialism” of the 19th and 20th century to the point of excluding the reality of the 21st century imperialism especially the influence Zionism has on the west and the continuing spread of Capitalism world-wide and what this all means.

    Petras continues …

    The US Empire, in contrast, is in a deadly embrace with an insignificant colonial militarist state (Israel), failed states in Yemen and Somalia, corrupt stagnant client regimes in Jordan and Egypt and the decadent rent collecting absolutist petrol-states of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. All form part of an unproductive atavistic coalition bent on retaining power via military supremacy. Yet Empires of the 21st century are built on the bases of productive economies with global networks linked to dynamic trading partners. Recognizing the economic primacy and market opportunities linked to becoming part of the Chinese global network, former or existing US clients and even puppet rulers have begun to edge away from submission to US mandates. Fundamental shifts in economic relations and political alignments have occurred throughout Latin America. Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries support Iran’s non-military nuclear program in defiance of Zionist led Washington aggression. Several countries have defied Israel-US policymakers by recognizing Palestine as a state. Trade with China surpasses trade with the US in the biggest countries in the region.

    As you can see the rise of Zionism’s influence of U.S. policy is helping to accelerate its decline. The wars in the Middle East are isolating the U.S. This is why I urge caution as the pseudo-Left promotes “Peak Oil” and “Climate Change” which can be used as rhetorical weapons targeting the BRICS and other emerging nations to aid U.S.-Israeli hegemony.

    In other words when you think about it the three pillars of oppression: capitalism, militarism, and racism (Zionism in this case) are still in place and as active as ever. What is needed are new alignments of resistance and visions of a very different type of society one of which abolishes private property, nationalism, militarism, money and racism.

  11. hayate said on January 15th, 2011 at 5:03pm #

    I wonder if this author has heard of “the great game”? He alludes to some aspects of that geostrategy, but not to it as a whole. To adequately understand the micropolicies, one needs to associate them in the macropolicy which is driving them. He also ignores the destablisation strategy being used on the Mideast and west and central Asia. Then there is the “peak oil” myth.

    I’m not even sure he got that myth right, either. If I remember correctly, according to the myth, peak oil will be reached when world oil output falls below world oil demand, not when 50% of the reserves are used up. But that’s a minor thing compared to what I listed.

  12. Keith said on January 15th, 2011 at 5:33pm #

    @ Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 2:18pm

    “The War on Iraq was NOT about oil. It was about the SUCCESSFUL destruction of a fairly modern society that was rival to the racist Zionist project.”

    The Iraq that was invaded in 2003 was NOT a fairly modern society that was a rival to anyone. Gulf War I totally destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure as intended, reducing this potential rival to US/Israeli Middle East hegemony to a basket case. The sanctions which followed further eliminated any possibility of Iraq assuming an active role in the region for the foreseeable future.

    In 2003, Iraq was no threat to Israeli Middle East ambitions, and was recognized as such. “Professor Mearsheimer and I made it clear in our article and especially in our book that the idea of invading Iraq originated in the United States with the neoconservatives, and not with the Israeli government. … We also pointed out that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials were initially skeptical of this scheme, because they wanted the U.S. to focus on Iran, not Iraq. However, they became enthusiastic supporters of the idea of invading Iraq once the Bush administration made it clear to them that Iraq was just the first step in a broader campaign of “regional transformation” that would eventually include Iran.” (Stephen Walt)

    The primary reason that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 was to establish physical control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves. What a shocker! The American empire, like the British before it, wants to control this geo-strategically important resource. That is why the US has constructed “enduring” bases in Iraq, hardly necessary to protect Israel, or to perform any function other than geo-strategic control. In the words of Stephen Pelletiere, former senior CIA political analyst on Iraq: “What the United States really wants is to hang on to its role of world hegemon, and it can’t do that if it does not control the oil of the Persian Gulf.” (“Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf”). Of course, other factors entered in, however, Iraq as a threat to Israeli hegemony was not one of them.

  13. 3bancan said on January 15th, 2011 at 5:39pm #

    Keith said on January 15th, 2011 at 5:33pm #

    Who the hell is buying this zionazi blather???….

  14. Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 5:53pm #

    Keith writes …

    The Iraq that was invaded in 2003 was NOT a fairly modern society that was a rival to anyone. Gulf War I totally destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure as intended, reducing this potential rival to US/Israeli Middle East hegemony to a basket case. The sanctions which followed further eliminated any possibility of Iraq assuming an active role in the region for the foreseeable future.

    You are incorrect. The Gulf War of 2003 and the continuing occupation has decimated Iraq as an economy and totally destroyed its infrastructure. Even by 2003, Iraq, despite the sanctions which did even more damage than Bush Sr. attack, was able still able to trade its oil on the Black Market and was able to find ways to circumvent the sanctions. Iraq was a fairly modern economy but the 2003 War and ongoing occupation sealed its fate. It is clear by now that the dominate factor of the 2003 war on Iraq was to advance the Zionist agenda and NOT oil.

    In 2003, Iraq was no threat to Israeli Middle East ambitions, and was recognized as such. “Professor Mearsheimer and I made it clear in our article and especially in our book that the idea of invading Iraq originated in the United States with the neoconservatives, and not with the Israeli government. …

    Then you CONFIRMED what I stated originally that the Iraq War was to the benefit of ZIONIST interests. Who do you think the neoconservatives are? It doesn’t matter whether the IDEA originated in Israel. The idea originated with Zionists. Ever read the Project of the New American Century (PNAC)? It was authored and signed by Zionists including Dick Chaney.

    We also pointed out that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials were initially skeptical of this scheme, because they wanted the U.S. to focus on Iran, not Iraq. However, they became enthusiastic supporters of the idea of invading Iraq once the Bush administration made it clear to them that Iraq was just the first step in a broader campaign of “regional transformation” that would eventually include Iran.” (Stephen Walt)

    And what’s your point? All you’ve done is CONFIRM my argument that the author here was wrong in his analysis about Iraq and thus argues a strawman (war for oil) which effects his geopolitical analysis.

  15. hayate said on January 15th, 2011 at 7:18pm #

    Keith said on January 15th, 2011 at 5:33pm

    “The primary reason that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 was to establish physical control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves.”

    That’s according to zionist sources.

    If that were true, why didn’t the usa occupy Iraq in 1991 when it easily could have? If the u.s. needed to secure physical occupation in order to dominate a country’s oil resources, then why have they not occupied Saudi Arabia, or all the other oil producing nations in the Mideast?

    The reality is that to control a country’s resources, one doesn’t need to occupy that country. Most resource control is done through the distribution network. When one thinks about it, it’s much the same as in the music business. Artists come up with material, but unless they get distributor to represent them, they don’t get air play or sales. Pre-internet, the internet is now changing that, though. In the oil business, a country can have oodles of oil, but if they are locked out by the major oil companies, they don’t have a way to sell it outside their borders (now, the rise of a growing independence among many countries, the “7 sisters” can not completely prevent a country finding a buyer for its oil, but that wasn’t so in 1991).

    But such thing is moot, anyway, since prior to attacking Iraq in 1991, the usa and Iraq were buddies, the usa didn’t have a problem controlling Iraq’s oil then. When they attacked Iraq, naturally, Iraq decided to seek other distribution networks not run by the ziofascist/fascist west. So why did the usa lure Iraq into Kuwait and wreck their control over Iraqi resources? Hussein didn’t like israel and it’s doubtful he would change his mind. So he had to go. But even then, in 1991, it was not thought that Iraq would have to be occupied and they weren’t. That war cost the u.s. the use of Iraqi oil. Getting rid of former american ally hussein was deemed more important than maintaining the profit of Iraqi oil sales for the western oil business. It did knock out the Iraqi military, though, preventing Iraq being a threat – to israel.

    In 2003, hussein was still in charge of Iraq, and he still opposed israel strongly. Sanctions did not cause his overthrow, as hoped, and he was now a sign of resistance to the ziofascist blob. Cant have that, if people get the crazy notion they can resist massa, massa’s delicate house of cards will come tumbling down. So any threat, even if only symbolic, has to be neutralised. And since the zionists had the usa at their disposal, they had the forces under their thumb for another attack on Iraq, only this time, they planned to stay after wards indefinitely. Times had changed. The Mideast was getting a little independent, China, Russia and India were beginning to challenge ziofascist/fascist hegemony, and the threat of an Iraqi “bad apple” contaminating the rest of the mideast and furthering those naughty independent thoughts some of those countries are having was unacceptable to israel, the country “god” have given the exclusive right to dominate in that region. So Iraq became the example, the severed horse head put in the potential recalcitrant’s bed, to make the point of who is still boss. If the Mideast is stable, then israel loses influence since the other countries gain in influence among western capitalists. Also, israel’s false claims of living in a hostile world of other’s making don’t play. The israelis need a destabilised Mideast to further their own dominating goals and israel’s needs will always over ride their puppets’ desire to have a stable region for more stable, and profitable business.

    Contrary to the pap regularly said about israel being western capitalism’s main and most dependable ally in the Mideast, the israelis have always been a rogue bull in the region. Actually hurting western capitalist interests, more than helping. The reason being, israel interjects itself, or more accurately, zionists among the western oligarchy do it, in order so they could influence the policies initially, and dominate them now. Without israel and zionist interference, western capitalism and Mideast countries would be a lot closer.

    Note, the usa, though the enforcer in these wars, is not the order giver. No country is. The oligarchies who make these decisions are international in scope. With the exception of the zionists, most are no longer affiliated with any single country. The fact that the zionists are still affiliated with israel is a major reason why that country has more influence over western oligarch geostrategy than any other country and why the guvs of just about all the western “rich” countries ultimately defer to israeli interests.

  16. Keith said on January 15th, 2011 at 10:34pm #

    Deadbeat, 3bancan & Hayate- What do you guys do besides engage in ritual incantations in three part harmony? In addition to being Zionists, the neocons also happen to be spokesmen for empire. Israel was reluctant to pursue an attack on Iraq in 2003 because it didn’t benefit them, and had to be talked into it. And since when did oil lose its importance to industrial society and its geo-strategic value? Your assertion that US foreign policy has changed significantly due to Zionist influence, and that control of the Middle East hydrocarbon resources is irrelevant is ludicrous. Keep trolling, guys. I leave you with two quotes:

    “Over the previous several years, it had become almost fashionable to say that oil was no longer ‘important.’ Indeed, in the spring of 1990, just a few months before the Iraqi invasion, the senior officers of America’s central command, which would be the linchpin of U.S. mobilization, found themselves lectured to the effect that oil had lost its strategic significance. But the invasion of Kuwait stripped away the illusion. Oil was still central to security, prosperity, and the very nature of civilization.” (The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power,” Daniel Yergin)

    “America wants the oil; that can be taken as a given. But it did not go to war because it thought that it was the only way to get it. America, the world’s financial powerhouse, always has ways of getting what it wants, outside of actually declaring itself to be at war with someone. What the United States really wants is to hang on to its role of world hegemon, and it can’t do that id it does not control the oil of the Persian Gulf. The book shows how over several decades, starting in the 1920s, U.S. oil companies (and also companies from Britain) exploited Gulf oil, and in the process turned the area into the oil industry’s center of gravity. As a consequence, for years the great oil cartel, using the Gulf as a fulcrum, was able to move the world oil industry to its requirements. That translated into significant power. The book shows how the western interests lost control of oil in 1973 with the OPEC revolution, and how the industry fared after that. The book concludes that America’s occupation of Iraq is a bid to recoup what the oil companies lost when they were forced to disgorge in 1973; that is, control over the world oil industry and beyond that control over the global economy.” (“Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf,” Stephen Pelletiere)

  17. Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 10:44pm #

    Keith writes …
    The reality is that the same transnational corporations and financial institutions which more or less run the US on the macro level also have significant and growing influence in the BRICS countries.

    Keith’s comment sounds like something right out of the Chomsky’s Zionist playbook. Without any evidence to support his conjecture it is the same pseudo-Left canard. Is Keith suggesting that WalMart runs China? Clearly this is a ridiculous inference.

    China has is own national agenda and WalMart and other U.S. firms took advantage of the low dollar conversion and lower wages in China to outsource production. It is a mutual relationship between the U.S. Capitalist elites and Chinese elites. WalMart enable Chinese goods to be sold in the USA and access to the U.S. markets helped China amass capital. The Chinese cheap labor allowed U.S. politicians to institute neo-liberal rollback of the Welfare State and to grow the FIRE sector. Much of this was in response to the falling rate of profit growth and the attack of labor for the past 40 years. (read: Capitalism).

    James Petras recently wrote these new alignments. He states …

    Thus imperial action is not always directly economic, as military action in one country or region is necessary to open or protect economic zones. Nor are all military actions decided by economic interests if the leading sector of the imperial state is decidedly militarist.

    The point here is that what going on is not strictly economic, not strictly militarist. Sometimes you can isolate those interests and other times they blend together to forge new alignments. The problem that I see with the author is that he is too fixated on the so-called “resource imperialism” of the 19th and 20th century to the point of excluding the reality of the 21st century imperialism especially the influence Zionism has on the west and the continuing spread of Capitalism world-wide and what this all means.

    Petras continues …

    The US Empire, in contrast, is in a deadly embrace with an insignificant colonial militarist state (Israel), failed states in Yemen and Somalia, corrupt stagnant client regimes in Jordan and Egypt and the decadent rent collecting absolutist petrol-states of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. All form part of an unproductive atavistic coalition bent on retaining power via military supremacy. Yet Empires of the 21st century are built on the bases of productive economies with global networks linked to dynamic trading partners. Recognizing the economic primacy and market opportunities linked to becoming part of the Chinese global network, former or existing US clients and even puppet rulers have begun to edge away from submission to US mandates. Fundamental shifts in economic relations and political alignments have occurred throughout Latin America. Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and other countries support Iran’s non-military nuclear program in defiance of Zionist led Washington aggression. Several countries have defied Israel-US policymakers by recognizing Palestine as a state. Trade with China surpasses trade with the US in the biggest countries in the region.

    As you can see the rise of Zionism’s influence of U.S. policy is helping to accelerate its decline. The wars in the Middle East are isolating the U.S. This is why I urge caution as the pseudo-Left promotes “Peak Oil” and “Climate Change” which can be used as rhetorical weapons targeting the BRICS and other emerging nations to aid U.S.-Israeli hegemony.

    In other words when you think about it the three pillars of oppression: capitalism, militarism, and racism (Zionism in this case) are still in place and as active as ever. What is needed are new alignments of resistance and visions of a very different type of society one of which abolishes private property, nationalism, militarism, money and racism.

  18. Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 11:07pm #

    Keith writes …

    Deadbeat, 3bancan & Hayate- What do you guys do besides engage in ritual incantations in three part harmony? In addition to being Zionists, the neocons also happen to be spokesmen for empire. Israel was reluctant to pursue an attack on Iraq in 2003 because it didn’t benefit them, and had to be talked into it.

    Look Keith it is rather unfortunate that DV moderates any posting with links in them otherwise I would post them as references. You can read the many articles by James Petras. I guess you’d dismiss Dr. Petras as being part of “4-part” harmony.

    What you are doing with your arguments is claiming that Zionism did not influence U.S. policy with your claim that the invasion of Iraq did not originate in Israel. As hayate points out Zionism has GLOBAL reach. I pointed you to PNAC and what you want to do is to excuse the influence that Zionism had on pushing the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.

    Keith writes …

    Your assertion that US foreign policy has changed significantly due to Zionist influence, and that control of the Middle East hydrocarbon resources is irrelevant is ludicrous.

    How is it irrelevant? AIPAC was the leader in lobbying for the war. This is acknowledged by Mearsheimer and Walt that you yourself use as your source. Here is what you omitted from the Stephen Walt article you cited…

    But as the neoconservative pundit Max Boot once put it, steadfast support for Israel is “a key tenet of neoconservatism.” Prominent neo-conservatives occupied important positions in the Bush administration, and in the aftermath of 9/11, they played a major role in persuading Bush and Cheney to back a war against Iraq, which they had been advocating since the late 1990s.

    Thus this quote of Walt from the article you sited NEGATES the two other quotes (the one from Yergin which is from 1990 and describes the first invasion which was more about embarrassing Gorbachev than about oil and the one from Stephen Pelletiere is dated around the time of the invasion when the pseudo-Left was selling “War for Oil”. There has been a lot more information published since then. You need to read James Petras and update your references).

  19. Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 11:22pm #

    Keith writes …

    In addition to being Zionists, the neocons also happen to be spokesmen for empire

    So what is your point? If the Zionist are spokesmen for empire it is because they are controlling it. That is the POINT and this fact that you acknowledge is a factor that the pseudo-Left and Chomskyite often repress and divert attention from. The tentacles of Zionism is throughout the “empire”.

    What you are doing rhetorically is trying to separate “empire” away from those who influence it. There is a confluence of influence but starting with Clinton in 1993 followed by Bush in 2001 with Obama in 2009, Zionism has increased its power, reach, and influence in the U.S. and throughout her political economy — even more so than the “corporations” which is too broad a term like “empire”. The key is WHO are the movers and shakers and what what are their interests. In the 21st Century it is a confluence of Zionism and Capitalism. This is a new alignment helped along by the pseudo-Left who still wants to sell us the old 20th century model in order to divert attention from the 21st century model of the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC – using James Petras parlance).

  20. Don Hawkins said on January 16th, 2011 at 3:29am #

    On my above comment and the year 3,000 let’s see that’s about a thousand years. So this model say’s West Antarctica bye bye by then. This very day what do we see as far as changes to the Earth? Praying for rain in the Middle East, Australia and the 100 year storm, South America, Russia, China, the States, Pakistan, the ice in the Arctic is it coming back to normal say 1979 to 2000 average, no. On the present path with all of the above thinking by say 2050 population will probably not be increasing and that will be all life on Earth. Just the next two years should clear the air so to speak. So we now get oil from rock’s and drill miles into the ocean well coal is still easy to get. Heck can’t we make fuel out of coal? Sure as our oceans turn a light green. The other night in Arizona on the fair and balanced channel someone said these kid’s in the stadium no respect. Well gosh darn it in a few day’s are wise one’s will be back to work and repeal and replace, those financial regulations should be on the list an enormous effort to survive no much to hard requires reason, known knowledge and imagination then of course the 2012 elections and those messages oh crap and the kid’s have no respect and those same kid’s by 2050 will have short hair and be working for a corporation and be calling call now it’s always’ been this way that’s how the World work’s not this time and few just might know this along with the older folk’s who just might have called called now one to many times.

  21. Don Hawkins said on January 16th, 2011 at 3:57am #

    {http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/composites.html}

    Here’s a site you all might like if you go to it you will see Rotating Globe Movie and current snapshot and on the far right bottom click on the arrow to slow it down to see the weather patterns Worldwide. It’s a great place to go when you hear and see another 100 year storm and watch how it formed. It’s updated ever three hours. Now if you really like using known knowledge go to a site that gives you ocean temperatures and a forecast for ocean temperatures then go Hummm.

  22. Don Hawkins said on January 16th, 2011 at 4:32am #

    Oz flood wreaks fresh havoc in Victoria

    Melbourne, Jan 16: Flood havoc continues in Australia. The fresh flood struck Victoria in southern Australia, on Sunday, Jan 16, the second largest populated state of the nation. Four major rivers in Victoria were in full flood, and 1,400 properties has been affected. No casualties have been reported so far.

    !”They had the army in town. They were sandbagging on the west side. It was flowing fairly quickly,” a resident of Victoria state, told Reuters.

    Victoria’s State Emergency Service described the flooding in the sate is worst since it began. Hugo Zoller said that it would continue for days.

    Australia’s flood over the corresponding period last year has contributed a historic proportions of damage to Queensland and other flood-stricken areas. Thousands of people evacuated their house, lost commodity exports, no transport, life is on a stand still in state capital, Brisbane. one India new’s

    Some report’s I read say this flooding is because of La Nina and that is partly true and some rather warm ocean temperatures might have a little to do with it. Here’s a web page for forecasts of ocean temperatures Worldwide and note where it’s about 85% above normal or more.

    {http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/glbSSTProbSea.gif}

    Forbidden knowledge sure seems so. Oz flooding you can’t make this kind of stuff up wonder what kind of kool aid there drinking in India because here in the States land of the free we get the truth about stuff Democracy and all that.

  23. Don Hawkins said on January 16th, 2011 at 4:57am #

    Probably a great time to bring up savages as compared to the civilized folk’s. Why is it that we only hear certain messages from the civilized folk’s because we are just savages? No I don’t think so more on the lines that if they did tell the truth just might have to do something about it and there vision that is probably a few castles in a sea of slums would become much harder. To me the question is well who get’s to live in the castles the sound man or women the camera man or women the writers the average Joe and Jane who do most of the real work I’ll bet not but let’s keep that a secret. Kind of brings a bad hair day into a whole new light and that’s men and women for the civilized folk’s.

  24. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 2:34pm #

    The boi starts out with this:

    Keith said on January 15th, 2011 at 10:34pm

    “Deadbeat, 3bancan & Hayate- What do you guys do besides engage in ritual incantations in three part harmony?”

    And then accuses others of being the trolls here:

    “Keep trolling, guys.”

    :D

    But it gets better:

    “Israel was reluctant to pursue an attack on Iraq in 2003 because it didn’t benefit them, and had to be talked into it.”

    That hasbara line has long ago been shown and documented to be israeli propaganda by numerous people investigating the zionist/israeli role in fomenting the Iraq invasion. If you want to mouth israeli propaganda, that’s your business, keith, but it doesn’t help your credibility on a site like this where people have already been long exposed to the facts. DV is not guardiantalk, you know. :D

    Here, the boi invents a strawman to respond to with the bulk of his post:

    “And since when did oil lose its importance to industrial society and its geo-strategic value? Your assertion that US foreign policy has changed significantly due to Zionist influence, and that control of the Middle East hydrocarbon resources is irrelevant is ludicrous.”

    Nobody claimed that resources were insignificant factors, keith invented that strawman so he could post the misdirecting quotes he did and look like he was making a substantive reply while avoiding the major points made. IE: standard sayamin debate tactics. Nobody was denying that resources were important in foreign policies – “the great game” frequently mentioned by me, for example, is all about resource control. The argument was about the necessity of invading another country in order to gain that control and about whether resources were the most important factor behind the ziofascist invasion of Iraq. I explained how it was not necessary to occupy to control the resources, keith didn’t address that, but invented the misdirecting strawman above instead.

    What keith did was a typical hasbara internet trolling routine practiced by sayanim used to disrupt and misdirect conversations on israeli criminality. Ad hominim, personal slander and misdirection are the staples of these spammers. What they have repeatedly shown is they are not capable of adult, rational discussion when the conversation is about zionist subjects. All one will get from them is debating tricks designed to prevent the conversation carrying through.

  25. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 2:37pm #

    Oops

    All one will get from them is debating tricks designed to prevent the conversation carrying through to the logical conclusions.

  26. Keith said on January 16th, 2011 at 3:46pm #

    @ Deadbeat said on January 15th, 2011 at 11:22pm

    “If the Zionist are spokesmen for empire it is because they are controlling it. That is the POINT and this fact that you acknowledge is a factor that the pseudo-Left and Chomskyite often repress and divert attention from. The tentacles of Zionism is throughout the “empire”.”

    “Controlling it” is a bit strong, however, no one has ever denied the influence of “The Lobby.” The extent of the influence is directly correlated to what is included in the definition of the lobby. Petras, who engages in counterproductive polemics, includes everything but the kitchen sink in his definition of the Zionist Power Configuration. Also, he continually describes the relationship of Israel to American Zionists as a one way transmission belt. The relationship is infinitely more complex, with American Zionists exerting considerable influence over Israeli policies, usually for the worse. The key point is that with the exception of Israel/Palestine, these Zionist imperialists are behaving at least somewhat consistently with their predecessors, a key difference being that they are extreme in their advocacy of military violence.

    Getting back to my initial comment concerning your initial comment, nothing has been said which contradicts my remarks concerning your assertion that Gulf War II was “NOT about oil. It was about the SUCCESSFUL destruction of a fairly modern society that was rival to the racist Zionist project.” Your comment would have been reasonably accurate if you were referring to Gulf War I, however, in 2003 Iraq had been effectively destroyed, which is why Israel was initially cool to the idea and had to be talked into it. The benefit to Israel in having American bases and troops in Iraq is nil. It’s about oil and war profits (military Keynesianism), and relocating American bases out of Saudi Arabia. I leave you with a final quote.

    “ The history and makeup of the neo-con faction is of no interest to me, and that is because, as we shall see, what they do (and that is the really important thing about them) could as easily be done by anyone. The neo-cons are part of the ideological apparatus of the military/industrial complex, a very important part, to be sure; in many respects they are the main propagandists…. Behind them (and this is the important part), supplying the necessary muscle, is the military/industrial complex….America is in the Gulf, militarily, because the military/industrial complex required it….” (“Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf,” Stephen Pelletiere, former CIA senior political analyst on Iraq).

  27. Don Hawkins said on January 16th, 2011 at 4:43pm #

    So far today American media is slowly figuring out who’s crazy and who’s not also some talk about mental illness and the sign’s. Now it also look’s like are elected leaders will tone it down a bit wonderful now we will get to hear and see toned down illusion the fascinating part is they tell us before they do it. I’ll bet it last’s a few day’s as this fight over who get’s to live in the castle so to speak the good the bad and the ugly comes to mind. Just maybe they wouldn’t have to tone it down if they faced the problems and not only tell us we the people the truth but themselves. Do they know the problems we face? I’ll bet they have a pretty good idea then again maybe they successfully brainwashed themselves I mean rationalized successfully rationalized. To watch this say the next year will be amazing and sad at the same time once you know you know just on the off chance. Well tomorrow is only a day away a nano blink of an eye.

    A nanosecond (ns) is one billionth of a second (10 to the ninth power). One nanosecond is to one second as one second is to 31.7 years.

  28. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 4:49pm #

    Keith said on January 16th, 2011 at 3:46pm

    “Petras, who engages in counterproductive polemics, includes everything but the kitchen sink in his definition of the Zionist Power Configuration.”

    What would a website be without sayanim slandering anti-zionists. The rest of what keith wrote about Petras is a typical zionist misrepresentation and distortion.

    In other words: lies.

  29. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 5:14pm #

    Contrasting zionist propaganda with the facts. First the zionist propaganda:

    Keith said on January 16th, 2011 at 3:46pm

    I wont waste space repeating the hasbara (and also pollute the site a 2nd time by repetition of it), just scroll up.

    Now for the facts:

    War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser By Emad Mekay

    “Zelikow made his statements about “the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

    He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

    “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

    “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.”

    [http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083]

    January 25, 2003

    Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq

    by BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON former CIA political analysts

    “Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel’s security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons’ own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word “domination” anywhere in the vicinity of the word “Israel,” as in “U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East” or “the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,” and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.

    This is tiresome, to put it mildly. So it’s useful to put forth the evidence for the assertion of Israeli complicity in Bush administration planning for war with Iraq, which is voluminous, as the following recitation will show. Much of what is presented below could be classified as circumstantial, but much is from the mouths of the horses themselves, either the neo-con planners or Israeli government officials, and much of it is evidence that, even if Israel is not actively pushing for war, many Israelis expect to benefit from it, and this despite their fear that a war will bring down on Israel a shower of Iraqi missiles.

    The evidence below is listed chronologically, except for two items grouped separately at the end. Although deletions have been made for the sake of brevity, and emphasis has been added to occasional phrases and sentences, no editorial narrative has been added. The evidence speaks for itself.”

    (go tot he link, it’s a long detailed accounting)

    [http://www.counterpunch.org/christison01252003.html]

  30. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 5:24pm #

    More facts at variance to the zionist “protect israel at all costs” propaganda:

    December 13, 2002

    A Rose By Another Other Name The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties

    by KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON

    (excerpts)

    “What does it matter, in the end, if these men split their loyalties between the United States and Israel? Apart from the evidence of the policy distortions that arise from zealotry, one need only ask whether it can be mere coincidence that those in the Bush administration who most strongly promote “regime change” in Iraq are also those who most strongly support the policies of the Israeli right wing. And would it bother most Americans to know that the United States is planning a war against Iraq for the benefit of Israel?

    The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel’s behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha’aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists “are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests.” The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that “the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him . But the style is the same.”

    These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice president heavily invested in oil. All of these factors ­ the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policymakers allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian fundamentalists, and oil ­ probably factor in more or less equally to the administration’s calculations on the Palestinian-Israeli situation and on war with Iraq. But the most critical factor directing U.S. policymaking is the group of Israeli loyalists: neither Christian fundamentalist support for Israel nor oil calculations would carry the weight in administration councils that they do without the pivotal input of those loyalists, who clearly know how to play to the Christian fanatics and undoubtedly also know that their own and Israel’s bread is buttered by the oil interests of people like Bush and Cheney. This is where loyalty to Israel by government officials colors and influences U.S. policymaking in ways that are extremely dangerous.”

    [http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html]

  31. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 5:39pm #

    Still more facts on israel’s promotion of the Iraq war:

    Israel linked to Iraq intelligence failure, general says

    By Molly Moore Jerusalem December 6, 2003

    (excerpts)

    “Israel was a “full partner” in American and British intelligence failures that exaggerated former president Saddam Hussein’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs before the US-led invasion of Iraq, a report by an Israeli military research centre has alleged.

    Israeli intelligence services and political leaders provided “an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities”, raising “the possibility that the intelligence picture was manipulated”, wrote General Brom, former deputy commander of the Israeli military’s planning division.

    “In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure, Israel, has remained in the shadows,” the report said.

    “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.

    [http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/05/1070351789502.html]

  32. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 6:07pm #

    Jeffrey Blankfort provides a very detailed analysis of the israeli and zionist machinations that brought the world the criminal Iraq war:

    A War for Israel

    Jeffrey Blankfort

    [http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html]

    The evidence that the Iraq war was israeli policy is documented extensively, by people on the left, centre and right. Even zionists have admitted israel was the prime mover (though, among themselves, not intending for the non-initiated “marks” to see). it is things like this “war for oil, not israel” canard of stealth zionist propagandists which is worse than the neo-con bs. The neo-cons are obvious, nobody with a brain is fooled. The sayanim/hasbarats promoting ziofascism, inc. from within the left, though, represent something far worse. Much more insidious and clever, their lying to promote israeli/zionist interests, and cover up their crimes, is designed to fool people who are natural skeptics of official propaganda. Therefore, these people adopt false positions of being opposed to said propaganda and go about promoting their hasbara with the aim to lull the unsuspecting into believing zionist hasbara by incorporating it into well known and substantially legit opposition material. In other words, most of what these phony left hasbarats say is true and they use the factualness of that for credibility and then to slip in some zionist propaganda, tailored to look part of the factual material. This is well planned co-optation. Those who engage in this dishonest, and ultimately criminal behaviour are worse than neo-cons because the damage they have done to opposition movements and to historical understanding of the past, and how it influences the present, is greater in the context of stopping ziofascism and the consolidation of oligarchic capitalism and their incessant war crimes and exploitation. The people who work to effect change, positive change don’t buy the neo-con/msn bs, but they unfortunately have been suckered into accepting hasbara as fact, when promoted by these stealth zionist promoting fake leftists. The result has been an ineffective, divided and neutered left, exactly what ziofascism, inc. needs.

  33. Deadbeat said on January 16th, 2011 at 6:08pm #

    Keith writes …

    . Petras, who engages in counterproductive polemics, includes everything but the kitchen sink in his definition of the Zionist Power Configuration.

    This insulting dismissal of Dr. Petras detailed research and bravery to challenge the pseudo-Left, especially the Chomsky canard, says it all. Keith rather make excuses for Zionism rather than confront its reality.

    First he selectively edits Stephan Walt’s remarks and tries to argue the strawman that the invasion of Iraq didn’t originate with Israel. During the 1st Gulf war Israelis wanted Bush Sr. TO invade Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein. So Israel from the start was quite keen on seeing Hussein overthrown by the US.

    But IMO that is irrelevant to the argument that OIL was not the dominating factor behind the war on Iraq as Chomskyites would have activists believe. This is also verified by the Economist magazine that reported the angst of the oil company against the war — BOTH wars.

    The desire of the oil companies is to maintain stability. It is misleading to a downright LIE promoted by the pseudo-Left that the primary reason for U.S. involvement in the Middle East for oil. This is the line promoted by pseudo-Leftists like Antonia Juhasz to deflect focus away from Zionist influence. It is clear that the contracts signed in 2010, American oil interests were frozen out. Non-American firms got the bulk of the Iraqi contracts. In fact before the invasion the oil company were hoping to work out deals with Hussein to get back into Iraq therefore there were NOT in favor of invasion. However AIPAC and other American Zionists and Israel OPENLY favored invasion.

    As Walt points out from my previous post …

    But as the neoconservative pundit Max Boot once put it, steadfast support for Israel is “a key tenet of neoconservatism.” Prominent neo-conservatives occupied important positions in the Bush administration, and in the aftermath of 9/11, they played a major role in persuading Bush and Cheney to back a war against Iraq, which they had been advocating since the late 1990s.

    Therefore the Zionists, as I stated WAS (and still is) IN CONTROL of the EMPIRE. The world “empire” and “corporations” are RHETORICAL tools used by the pseudo-Left to deflect from saying ZIONISM. The 21st Century “empire” today is ruled by Zionist-Militarist-Capitalists or as in Petra’s parlance — Zionist Power Configuration.

    Also, he continually describes the relationship of Israel to American Zionists as a one way transmission belt. The relationship is infinitely more complex, with American Zionists exerting considerable influence over Israeli policies, usually for the worse.

    Israel uses its fifth column of DUAL citizens, Zionist sympathizers (including pseudo-Left Zionists like Chomsky who defends AIPAC and criticized BDS), the Zionist media, and the bought and paid for cowed politicians and NGO to influence American politics. Clearly the relationship is NOT one-way with America in primacy as Kieth implies. Clearly Netanyahu was able to use the Zionist power configuration to circumvent Washington desires to have a moratorium on Israeli settlements. To suggest that the U.S. is in the driver seat is pure Chomskyite propaganda.

    The key point is that with the exception of Israel/Palestine, these Zionist imperialists are behaving at least somewhat consistently with their predecessors, a key difference being that they are extreme in their advocacy of military violence.

    Zionism has ALWAYS been militaristic because it is FUNDAMENTALLY a RACIST ideology. I guess Keith never heard of the Stern Gang. Now with Zionists in firm control of the “empire” they are arrogant and are clearly unafraid to use force and other means of warfare especially psyops.

    Getting back to my initial comment concerning your initial comment, nothing has been said which contradicts my remarks concerning your assertion that Gulf War II was “NOT about oil. It was about the SUCCESSFUL destruction of a fairly modern society that was rival to the racist Zionist project.” Your comment would have been reasonably accurate if you were referring to Gulf War I, however, in 2003 Iraq had been effectively destroyed, which is why Israel was initially cool to the idea and had to be talked into it. The benefit to Israel in having American bases and troops in Iraq is nil. It’s about oil and war profits (military Keynesianism), and relocating American bases out of Saudi Arabia. I leave you with a final quote.]

    That is total propagandist whitewash and a rewrite of the historical record. Iraq was not “destroyed” by Gulf War I. Iraq still had its infrastructure and was able to rebuild. The SANCTION did more harm than the 1991 invasion. Gulf War II destroyed Iraq as a nation, as a society, as an economy, and broke the country into regional factions.

    Kudos to hayate for posting the Christensons. There is so much information out there and this has been debated over the years that you forget what’s out there.

    Keith’s strawman is to absolve Israel to promote the Chomskyite “junior partner” myth. That argument won’t fly. Zionism is accelerating the decline of the U.S. by isolated the country from developing partnerships. The irony however is that the neo-liberal desire to weaken labor by leveraging cheap global labor help to increase Zionist power since it was centered mostly in the FIRE sectors. The two main fronts out there to be challenged are Zionism and Capitalism with Zionism being the most vulnerable which is why the role of the pseudo-Left is Zionism’s most important line of defense.

  34. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 6:11pm #

    Edit:

    The people who work to effect change, positive change don’t buy the neo-con/msm bs, but they unfortunately have been suckered into accepting hasbara as fact, when promoted by these stealth zionist-promoting fake leftists. The result has been an ineffective, divided and neutered left, exactly what ziofascism, inc. needs to maintain existing control and expand into regions where their control is lacking or non-existent.

  35. hayate said on January 16th, 2011 at 6:20pm #

    Deadbeat

    “The two main fronts out there to be challenged are Zionism and Capitalism with Zionism being the most vulnerable which is why the role of the pseudo-Left is Zionism’s most important line of defense.”

    Exactly. Your post was an excellent analysis.

  36. Don Hawkins said on January 17th, 2011 at 3:37am #

    Did anybody see and hear the golden globes last night? I watched it for about an hour it sure look’s like we are moving into the wondrous land of imagination and or illusion. I think we found out the beautiful people are still here and very wise indeed. One actor did say he likes playing real people it’s special to do that offers real meaning I guess. The best part I saw was the car commercials as did anybody ever see the movie It’s a Mad Mad Mad World well as the word came from the sponsors last night I remembered the big W and heck now we could call it the big C the wondrous land of the Corporation. Cadillac and Chrysler Corporation and those commercials last night were wondrous alright. Yes moving into that wondrous land where nothing is as it seems. According to those corporations we are now in American going back to style being bold doing things different or back to the old World in a special sort of way exceptional is a good word and could add an ism I guess. Well is it tomorrow our wise leaders will be back high on the hill with bold new ideas like repeal and replace and I wonder just what it is they are going to repeal in this wondrous land called America. Last night in that room for the golden globes was there an elephant in the room or high on the hill in DC an elephant in the room where nothing is as it seems but they do tell us before they do it. Well buckle-up people I think we are in for one hell of a ride and it’s not the fall that get’s you it’s the sudden stop at the end. Reason, know knowledge, work together and forget toned down hell tone it up.

  37. Don Hawkins said on January 17th, 2011 at 4:34am #

    The whole repeal and replace from our elected leaders well it does appear they have repealed there minds almost like a prison for the mind but do it with style and boldness. The biggest problem, problems life on Earth has ever faced and here in the States it’s repeal and replace can hardly wait to see this little energy part if it even comes up.

  38. Don Hawkins said on January 17th, 2011 at 6:58am #

    World is ‘one poor harvest’ from chaos, new book warns
    By Karin Zeitvogel (AFP) – 10 hours ago
    WASHINGTON — Like many environmentalists, Lester Brown is worried. In his new book “World on the Edge,” released this week, Brown says mankind has pushed civilization to the brink of collapse by bleeding aquifers dry and overplowing land to feed an ever-growing population, while overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
    If we continue to sap Earth’s natural resources, “civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when,” Brown, the founder of Worldwatch and the Earth Policy Institute, which both seek to create a sustainable society, told AFP.
    What distinguishes “World on the Edge” from his dozens of other books is “the sense of urgency,” Brown told AFP. “Things could start unraveling at any time now and it’s likely to start on the food front.
    “We’ve got to get our act together quickly. We don’t have generations or even decades — we’re one poor harvest away from chaos,” he said.
    “We have been talking for decades about saving the planet, but the question now is, can we save civilization?”
    In “World on the Edge”, Brown points to warning signs and lays out arguments for why he believes the cause of the chaos will be the unsustainable way that mankind is going about producing more and more food.
    Resources are already beginning to be depleted, and that could cause a global “food bubble” created by overusing land and water to meet the exponential growth in demand for food — grain, in particular — to burst.
    Two huge dustbowls have formed in the world, one in Africa and the other in China and Mongolia, because of soil erosion caused by overplowing.
    In Lesotho, the grain harvest has dropped by more than half over the last decade or two because of soil erosion, Brown said.
    In Saudi Arabia, grain supplies are shrinking as a fossil aquifer drilled in in the 1970s to sustain domestic grain production is running dry after years of “overpumping” to meet the needs of a population that wants to consume more meat and poultry.
    Global warming is also impacting the global supply of grain, which Brown calls the foundation of the world food economy.
    Every one-degree-Celsius rise above the normal temperature results in a 10 percent fall in grain yields, something that was painfully visible in Russia last year, where a seven-week heatwave killed tens of thousands and caused the grain harvest to shrink by 40 percent.
    Food prices soared in Russia as a result of the poor harvest, and Russia — which is one of the top wheat exporters in the world — cut off grain exports.
    Different grains are staple foods in most of the world, and foods like meat and dairy products are “grain-intensive.”
    It takes seven pounds (3.2 kilograms) of grain fed to a cow to produce a pound of beef, and around four pounds (1.8 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of cheese, Brown told AFP.
    In “World on the Edge”, Brown paints a grim picture of how a failed harvest could spark a grain shortage that would send food prices sky-rocketing, cause hunger to spread, governments to collapse and states to fail.
    Food riots would erupt in low-income countries and “with confidence in the world grain market shattered, the global economy could start to unravel,” Brown warned.
    But Brown still believes civilizational collapse can be averted, if there is a mass effort to confront threats such as global warming, soil erosion and falling water tables, not military superpowers.

    But Brown still believes civilizational collapse can be averted, if there is a mass effort to confront threats such as global warming, soil erosion and falling water tables, not military superpowers.

    And here in the States the greatest minds in human history repeal and replace is it.

  39. Deadbeat said on January 17th, 2011 at 9:07am #

    Don writes …

    I remembered the big W and heck now we could call [The Golden Globes]t the big C the wondrous land of the Corporation.

    We could also call it the big Z the wondrous land of Zionism. It was like being a voyeur in a country club it was extremely White, Gay and Zionist. You’d be hard pressed to find any people of color.

  40. Keith said on January 17th, 2011 at 10:58am #

    @ Hayate

    Once Israel became convinced that the occupation of Iraq would lead to military action against Iran, they then enthusiastically supported the war and the Lobby actively lobbied for it. This enabled members of the liberal intelligentsia such as Bill and Kathleen Christison, Mearsheimer and Walt, etc, to point their fingers and crow “see, the Lobby made us do it!”, seemingly unaware that the activities of the Lobby are mostly congruent with the interests of the military/industrial complex which profits greatly from “aid” to Israel and from America’s never ending wars against the Third World. Unable to respond logically to my initial point that Iraq in 2003 was a mostly destroyed country which posed no threat whatsoever to Israeli Middle East ambitions, hence, the Lobby facilitated imperial geo-strategy, you have resorted to name calling, “boi”, “sayanim”, “ziofascist”, etc, in your characteristic fashion of relying upon ad hominem insults to distract attention for the facts, and to try to squelch any discussion which deviates from your rigid point of view, an activity which you disingenuously project unto others who you claim are “stealth zionist-promoting fake leftists”, a preposterous claim.

  41. Don Hawkins said on January 17th, 2011 at 1:12pm #

    {http://arxiv.org/}

    Go to this web site and you must sign up it’s free and read the rules. You will see physics and at the bottom of that category you will see Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics; well click on that then the big one at the top of the page you should see; Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth. It’s a big one and has much on population growth as well. I’ll bet many of you with find this amazing to read. DB I will ask questions. Here’s the direct web page and I don’t know if you can sign up from that page maybe.

    {http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2832}

    Read it in PDF and happy reading although happy is probably the wrong word. Oh and all you global elite’s out there don’t read this it will only confuse you all.

  42. hayate said on January 17th, 2011 at 1:12pm #

    Keith said on January 17th, 2011 at 10:58am

    “Once Israel became convinced that the occupation of Iraq would lead to military action against Iran, they then enthusiastically supported the war and the Lobby actively lobbied for it.”

    Before you claimed israel didn’t want the war, now when shown you were lying, you change your tune. That’s called changing the goal posts, a common tactic of the pro-israeli “hasbara corps”.

    “This enabled members of the liberal intelligentsia such as Bill and Kathleen Christison, Mearsheimer and Walt, etc, to point their fingers and crow “see, the Lobby made us do it!”

    What makes you lie to defend israeli and ziofascists?

  43. Keith said on January 17th, 2011 at 2:29pm #

    @ hayate said on January 17th, 2011 at 1:12pm

    In my initial reply to Deadbeat on 1/15 @ 5:33 pm, I quoted Stephen Walt saying: “We also pointed out that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials were initially skeptical of this scheme, because they wanted the U.S. to focus on Iran, not Iraq. However, they became enthusiastic supporters of the idea of invading Iraq once the Bush administration made it clear to them that Iraq was just the first step in a broader campaign of “regional transformation” that would eventually include Iran.” (Stephen Walt)

    In my next comment at 10:34 pm, I said: “Israel was reluctant to pursue an attack on Iraq in 2003 because it didn’t benefit them, and had to be talked into it.”

    On 1/16 at 3:46 pm, I commented that “in 2003 Iraq had been effectively destroyed, which is why Israel was initially cool to the idea and had to be talked into it.”

    Finally, today, 1/17 at 10:58 am I said: “Once Israel became convinced that the occupation of Iraq would lead to military action against Iran, they then enthusiastically supported the war and the Lobby actively lobbied for it.”

    Now at 1:12 pm Hayate says: “Before you claimed israel didn’t want the war, now when shown you were lying, you change your tune. That’s called changing the goal posts, a common tactic of the pro-israeli “hasbara corps”.”

    My comments on this have been quite clear and consistent. This is an example of your characteristic, unprincipled misrepresentation of the facts which you rely on in addition to name calling in your ongoing attempt to demean those who differ from your extremist views.

  44. shabnam said on January 17th, 2011 at 2:32pm #

    There are number of sources that show the role of Israel in the current wars to expand her interest in the region. Israel through its lobby, 5th column, sold the war plan to an illiterate ‘president’ in the region. Number of officials believed that Iraq war was carried out to benefit Israel.
    {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjmi9D-E1g&feature=channel}

    In 2003, Iraq was a weaken country due to Zionist policy in the Clinton’s administration designed by Martin Indyke “dual containment’ against Iraq and Iran, where let to more than 650,000 deaths, many younger than 5 years of age. Today, we have another Israel-firster, Dennis Ross, a fifth column, where is pushing war against Iran.
    The war against Iraq started during the Clinton administration in 1992 and continued. In 2003, Israel wanted a war against Iran because ISRAEL KNEW IRAQ WAS ALREADY A divided and defeated country which did not require that many efforts to be taken down since the Zionist terrorist pawns, the Kurds, were established in the north due to illegal sanctions and NO FLY ZONE. Thus, Israel Pushed for a war against Iran, but Bush wanted a victory in Iraq to sell a greater war against Iran which was not achieved. The neocon were not implemented as they expected.
    Israel, like in Iraq, played a MAJOR ROLE in partition of the Sudan

    {http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/iraq_partition.html}

    according to ODED YINON PLAN. Israel is trying to establish “greater Israel”, from Mauritania to Afghanistan, through destabilization and

    {http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/09/an_old_zionist.html}
    partition of the regional countries in the region.

    {http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/2131}

    A NEW MAP OF THE MIDDLE EAST ACCORDING TO ODED YINON STRATEGY is shown below:

    {http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html#neocon}

  45. hayate said on January 17th, 2011 at 8:47pm #

    This is interesting, and timely. Sniegoski here is saying pretty much what I said on this thread.

    Avi Shlaim on the Neoconservative Middle East War Agenda

    by Stephen J. Sniegoski

    (excerpts)

    “The influence of the Likud and of its friends in Washington could be detected across the entire spectrum of American policy towards the Middle East,” writes Shlaim. “Particularly striking was the ideological convergence between some of the leading neoconservatives in the Bush Administration – such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith—and the hardliners in Ariel Sharon’s inner circle.” (p. 298)

    I go to great lengths in The Transparent Cabal to highlight the link between the neocons and the hardline Likudniks. In fact, I show that the neocons’ very plan to reconfigure the Middle East paralleled the Likudnik goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel’s enemies, which was best articulated by Oded Yinon in the early 1980s.

    Shlaim refers to Israeli support for the broader neocon Middle East war agenda, which would also primarily benefit that country, not the United States: “Washington’s policy of confrontation and regime change was fervently supported in Tel Aviv. Here too the benefit to Israel is much more evident than the benefit to America. And here too, the US agenda towards the region appears to incorporate a right-wing Likud agenda.” (p. 300)

    In contrast to Shlaim’s view of Israel’s security, the neocons explicitly sought regional instability to allegedly achieve democracy, as I show in The Transparent Cabal. And the hardline Likudnik position was to destabilize and fragment Israel’s enemies to enhance Israeli security. The neocons similarly advocated such an approach in their “Clean Break” agenda, which did not emphasize democratization. In short, from the perspective of the neocons and the hardline Likudniks, the instability and the “shadow of civil war” resulting from the US invasion of Iraq were neither surprising nor unwelcome. Thus the neocons’ plans failed only to the extent that the US has not, or at least not yet, moved on to attack and destabilize Iran and other enemies of Israel.”

    [http://pulsemedia.org/2011/01/18/avi-shlaim-on-the-neoconservative-middle-east-war-agenda]

  46. hayate said on January 18th, 2011 at 2:19am #

    Here is link which provided data on Iraqi oil production. Before the 1st Gulf war, Iraq production was at 3.5 mbpd. Due to that war and sanctions, it dropped to a tenth of that. But by 2002, production had increased to 2.5 mbpd. In 2009 it was still only 2.9 mbpd, still well below what it was when the israeloamericans first attacked in 1991. because of these conflicts, the development of Iraq’s oil has be been at a standstill, or in the negatives. Without the wars and sanctions, Iraq oil would have been developed to a much greater extent and their product would be much higher, probably double what it is now, at the very least. For 20 years, Iraq’s oil production has essentially been on hold while the ziofascists played their domination games. This is hardly something wanted by oil execs.

    Iraq: Oil and Economy
    Sands of Iraq hold world’s 2nd largest oil reserve

    [http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm]

  47. mary said on January 18th, 2011 at 3:13am #

    Interesting Hayate. But of course for those who own the holdings, and they are the Western companies I believe, the value of the reserves has risen enormously in the meantime. They are laughing whilst the Iraqi blood and body parts lie under the sand.

  48. mary said on January 18th, 2011 at 3:17am #

    Drill Drill Drill baby! – for Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Lukoil for example.

    {http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE70D23J20110114}

  49. hayate said on January 18th, 2011 at 3:37am #

    Mary

    From the link you posted:

    “Iraq has signed a series of deals with international oil firms to develop its vast oil reserves in a bid to boost output potential to 12 million bpd from around 2.7 million bpd now.”

    When I wrote Iraq’s oil could have been double now of what it was before the 1st israeloamerican war on Iraq, I was giving a conservative estimate. Apparently it could have been on the order of closer to 3-4 times 1990 production.

    “the value of the reserves has risen enormously in the meantime. They are laughing whilst the Iraqi blood and body parts lie under the sand.”

    No doubt they are laughing, but the profit they might be making now pales to what they lost with 20 years of war and sanctions. Will they ever be able to make that lost opportunity up? The israeloamerican will not be able to occupy Iraq indefinitely, and when they get the boot, those current oil contracts will probably be one of the first things brought by the occupation to go.

    From an oil company pov, that’s gotta hurt.

  50. Deadbeat said on January 18th, 2011 at 3:42am #

    Hayate’s posts confirms what I stated originally. The oil companies were about to re-enter Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. They didn’t lobby for war nor did they want a war with Iraq. They wanted to do business with Iraq. The 2003 Iraq War was NOT for oil. It was designed to DESTROY Iraq and to bolster Zionist aims.

    The true fact that the “Left” deceived activists with the “War for Oil” canard goes to show that 1) the Left cannot be trusted and 2) the Left is completely CORRUPT. Head Zionist in Charge (HZIC) Chomsky came to the defense of AIPAC and the neo-cons as soon as Mersheimer and Walt blew the whistle.

    As hayate posts and Shabnam constanly reminds us …

    I go to great lengths in The Transparent Cabal to highlight the link between the neocons and the hardline Likudniks. In fact, I show that the neocons’ very plan to reconfigure the Middle East paralleled the Likudnik goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel’s enemies, which was best articulated by Oded Yinon in the early 1980s.

  51. hayate said on January 18th, 2011 at 5:43pm #

    Deadbeat

    Some more info you might find interesting. These are some comments by Blankfort about the zionist push for the Iraq war, and also about oil company resistance to the war. First the zionist influence:

    Jeffrey Blankfort November 23, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    “Sean McBride raises an important point that not only Chomsky but what (barely) passes as an anti-war movement ignores. From the very moment that the US launched its war on Iraq, the main point on the agenda of the entire American Jewish political establishment (in short, The Lobby), has been to pressure the US government to launch another on Iran and they have been thwarted thus far in their efforts as Ray McGovern has pointed out, by those wiser heads in the Pentagon the Defense Department who are well aware of the catastrophic, unpredictable and uncontrollable results that are likely to ensue from such a foolhardy action.

    They, meaning the major players in the AJE (American Jewish Establishment) have been able to get away with it because they were able to get away with pushing the US into the current war with Iraq as I first documented in 2005 (“A War for Israel.” [http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html]) and which Professors Mearsheimer and Walt later greatly amplified.

    In their defense of the Lobby and of the tribe, our left critics argued that Israel and the Lobby wanted the US to attack Iran at the time, instead, ignoring the well known fact that overthrowing the Saddam Hussein government had long been a goal of the Jewish neocons and their right wing neanderthal non-Jewish Israelophallic allies such as James Woolsey and John Bolton. (See “Clean Break” [http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm]) Those who object that the neocons are not a part of the Israel Lobby, that their being Jewish is irrelevant (as some very well known leftists have done), and that Iraq was a war for oil, might be advised to take up hop skotch.”

    [http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html#comment-251243]

  52. hayate said on January 18th, 2011 at 5:44pm #

    The “war for oil” disinformation:

    Jeffrey Blankfort November 23, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    “Max, GHW Bush was far closer to the oil industry than Dubya or anyone else in Dubya’s administration and he pubicly opposed the war. What has been forgotten was that the very same neocons inside and outside of government and in the media were pushing for Bush Sr. to take out Saddam in 1991 and when he decided that keeping him in place was more in tune with US interests in the region, namely securing the oil supply and maintaining the stability to do so, the neocons and the other Zionist hawks turned on him and did so viciously (and they would keep up their efforts to oust Saddam through the Clinton years). All this is well documented and does require “circumstantial evidence” or speculation.

    Why, it needs to be asked of Ajl and those embracing the same opinion, why, if the oil companies wanted regime change in Iraq and the MIC more profits did they not seize the opportunity that presented itself in 1991 and allow Saddam to hold onto power and his oil until 2003? You see, if the argument that 2003 was a war to take over Iraq’s oil, that reasoning should also have applied to 1991.

    That the oil companies make profits in war and profited from this one is one of those statements that requires nothing more than a “duh?” response. If it had not been for pressure from the Zionist establishment, neocons plus, the American and other multi-national oil companies would have been dealing with Saddam all along as if it were not for the same folks who are dictating US Middle East policy, they would be dealing with Iran. In fact, some of them have been forced to back off because of the Zionist created and the Zionist enforced sanctions. That’s a matter of record, as well.

    The real, unfortunate, upshot of this debate is that the leadership of the so-called anti-war movement before it vanished, ANSWER and UFPJ, both swallowed the same Kool-Aid as has Max, and for the same tribal reasons. Moreover, it is a lot easier to shout, “No Blood for Oil!” than face the reality and what that reality obliges us to do.”

    [http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html#comment-251426]

    BTW, the Max he addressed that to is Max Ajl, not DV’s max, just in case someone was thinking that. Ammusingly, our resident ‘expert” on this thread was also very active, similarly OTT, in that mondo thread. This is what he had to say to Blankfort:

    “Have you lost your mind? Get some therapy!”

    [http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html#comment-250859]

  53. Deadbeat said on January 18th, 2011 at 7:07pm #

    Hayate,

    Thanks for the followup reference. I also noticed “Keith” comments in support his favorite left-wing Zionist. The point is that there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence (as well as commonsense) that the oil companies did not push any of the invasions — neither 1991 nor 2003 — as it was counterproductive to their overall economic interest. This has to be one of the greatest psy-op con jobs every perpetrated on the American people and it emanates from the “Left” and “alternative” media. What makes the con job so effective is their claim of “innocence” against the even more vile “mainstream” media.

    Zionism has to be confronted because it is has extremely retarded and corrupted all aspects of the Left. Even Socialists are mum or look for other “economic” explanations that divert from confronting this racist ideology like for example the way WSWS blamed the mining interest for Rudd ouster and failed to examine Zionist influence in his downfall.

  54. hayate said on January 18th, 2011 at 7:12pm #

    Deadbeat, I agree.

  55. catguy00 said on January 18th, 2011 at 8:38pm #

    Problem is that Israel wanted war with Iran not Iraq in 2003.

    You’re much more likely to find an alliance with the far right on this issue than with the left.

  56. 3bancan said on January 18th, 2011 at 9:03pm #

    catguy00 said on January 18th, 2011 at 8:38pm #

    “Problem is that Israel wanted war with Iran not Iraq in 2003″

    Who the hell is buying this zionazi mendacious blather???…